[governance] Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality

[Dan Krimm]

Forgive the delayed response, I've been offline over the weekend.


At 7:14 AM -0500 11/17/07, Veni Markovski wrote:
>At 13:13 11/16/2007  -0800, you wrote:

>>seriously, regardless of your personal doubts.  You can try to minimize
>>their numbers and their relative importance, but when you do that you will
>
>I didn't try to minimize the numbers. I was asking a question "how
>many", not "how little". Therfore the following conclusions of yours
>are also incorrect.

*Of course* you were minimizing the numbers, by asking the rhetorical
question ("many" or "little" makes no difference -- you were clearly
implying that they were not worth paying attention to).  My conclusions are
not incorrect.



>>just infuriate them more.  No one likes to be marginalized by those in
>>power.  It just doesn't feel "fair" -- rather, it feels like the heavy hand
>>of power.
>>And excuse me, how is ICANN "responsible for" only a "small segment of the
>>Internet"??  Isn't ICANN responsible for the *entire DNS* over the *entire
>>Internet*?
>
>Is the DNS the whole Internet? I think the DNS is a small part of it.
>There are many more, and more relevant, parts of the Internet that
>makes it run today.

At the current stage of Internet evolution, everything still depends upon
DNS.  It is a gateway through which virtually all identifiers must pass.
In economic terms, DNS remains a de facto monopoly on the location
function, without which an end node might as well not exist in most cases.



>>Everyone and everything on the Internet uses the DNS, because
>>DNS is in effect the main gatekeeper to any content or applications on the
>>net (until Google takes over everything).
>
>Which may very well happen soon, and then the domain names will lose
>its value.

(1) Don't count your chickens before they hatch, even if Vint is doing so.

(2) Even if this is true, the same political issues that apply to DNS will
then apply to Google and whatever it does to circumvent the need for DNS.
So, whatever political processes we devise to deal with DNS will apply to
any replacement paradigm as well.  Why not start now to try to get it right?



>>Perhaps the difference of opinion here derives from the fact that you still
>>want to talk in terms of technical function and run away from political
>>policy issues.
>
>This is exactly what I am not running away from.

Well, then, I'm glad to hear that you agree that control over DNS (etc.) is
a political issue and not just a technical issue.  Too bad that most
officials at ICANN disagree with this stance.



>>it becomes clear that there is justified disagreement about how well the
>>system works.
>
>the fact that there's a disagreement does not make the system NOT
>working. It just makes an argument HOW it is working. Not IF it is working.

Sorry, perhaps this is a function of your misunderstanding of arcane
nuances of the English language (as you have pleaded in the past).  The
word "working" often has a connotation of "successful operation" not merely
"operation" and of course standards for "successful" depend on your
political position and political values.  This is precisely my point.

The sense of the word "working" that connotes only "mere operation" is
unimportant in this discussion.  The sense that connotes "successful
operation" is what is important, and determining that success is a
political discussion and a political judgment.



>>Face it, ICANN has become
>
>you make a statement, but there's no evidence to support it.

There's tons of evidence that ICANN is an ineliminably political
institution (and not merely a technical institution).  It is currently
explicitly addressing public policy matters of personal privacy, law
enforcement, freedom of expression and intellectual property, and
implicitly addressing matters of economic power and political power and
jurisdiction.

And besides, you said just above that you were not running away from the
political policy issues, so you seem to contradict yourself anyway, unless
I misunderstood you.



>>transmission.  Politically speaking, the current root system is not working
>>for those not in power.
>
>Can you define "power" here?

Sure.  Power over the DNS in this context means the monopoly power of ICANN
to decide who/what gets into the root and who/what does not.  This power is
both economic and political in nature.  And as long as DNS has (functional
and thus economic) value, this power remains politically significant and
deserves discussion on political terms.



>>actually see it.  But be realistic: elephants are too big to sweep under
>>the rug.
>
>I could accept that, if
>a) there was indeed an elephant in the room, which you still have not
>convinced me into believing, and
>b) you are sure there's no enough big rug ;)

 (a) I do not necessarily hope to convince you into believing anything, as
people's political opinions are primarily emotional and do not respond to
rational analysis.  But for the benefit of those looking on, I hope a
rational analysis might ultimately have some weight.

 (b) I fear there is indeed a rug big enough, but I hope not.  Some truly
nefarious authoritarian governments in the past have constructed
tremendously large rugs and used their monopoly power over mass
communications to help sweep huge elephants under the rug, so we know that
it can be done.

But it was and would be wrong.

Dan
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance